Abstract
Criticism is one of the characteristics of new thought in Qajar era Iran. The beginning of criticism in this period was the writings of Fath Ali Akhundzadeh, which covered a wide range. He criticized everything from religion to individual and social behavior and was more frank than any other thinker. Although other modern Iranian thinkers of that time were not as frank as him, they took the basic themes of criticism from him. Akhundzadeh brought "criticism" from literature and history and its basic themes to politics. The basic problem of this research is to pay attention to "criticism" as a starting point for political modernism, in the light of which, traditional and modern political patterns are criticized and attention to the problem of governance and its shortcomings starts from this point. Therefore, the main question of this research is how to categorize intellectuals' criticism of governance? Based on its themes, it can be known as "criticism of tyranny", "criticism of governance methods without direct denial of tyranny" and "criticism of modernist governance efforts". The first one was with the formation of the concept of "dispute" in Akhundzadeh's thought and its continuation in the concept of "tyranny". The second one was the efforts of people such as Malkam, Moshtar al-Doulah, and Majdal Molk, and the third one was created in Akhundzadeh's thinking in criticizing the legalistic efforts of the Nasrid era and Talebov's critique of constitutionalism.
Keywords: Critic, Governance, Despotism, Constitutionalism, Qajar, Modernity.
 
Introduction
An important part of the modern approaches to government in the Qajar era, which led to the formation of constitutionalism in Iran and presented the model of constitutional government as a desirable and ideal model, came from the criticism of "ancient" thought in Iran. An important part of "opinion" in the "experience of political modernity" of this period was critical approaches to the government. Of course, these critics were not all the same. Although it was in the "texture" of "new" thought. Basically, the critique of governance manifests itself in a serious way in a critical attitude towards Iranian and Islamic history, literature, and tradition, and therefore it is "modern" and can be seen as a basic principle for understanding modernist orientations in contemporary Iran.
The problem here is that the approaches and patterns of criticism of governance were not all the same. From Akhundzadeh, who is the initiator of criticism, in various aspects, who has a radical approach, to Malek, who is on the conservative side of the critics, although they are all placed in the context of "the experience of political modernity", they cannot be considered the same, and the same issue, the need to categorize and Their typology is necessary to know their types, in order to clarify their effects on the intellectual and political currents of their time. For this reason, this research has a kind of innovation. Also, categorizing the patterns of criticism of the government is an important part of the "experience of political modernity" in Iran. Criticisms that, despite having negative aspects, also benefited from positive approaches in creating the foundations of the "future" government in the expected "horizon". Anyway, the main question of this research is how to categorize intellectuals' criticisms of governance?
 
Materials & method
In this research, by using the historical and descriptive-analytical method and using the first-hand sources of the Qajar era mujazdites, whose typology is categorized based on their writings and thoughts, these writings were analyzed and in the context of time before Constituency has been noted.
Discussion & Result
The beginning of criticism in this period was the writings of Fath Ali Akhundzadeh, which covered a wide range. He criticized everything from religion to individual and social behavior and was more frank than any other thinker. Although other modern Iranian thinkers of that time were not as frank as him, they took the basic themes of criticism from him. Akhundzadeh brought "criticism" from literature and history and its basic themes to politics. The basic problem of this research is to pay attention to "criticism" as a starting point for political modernism, in the light of which, traditional and modern political patterns are criticized and attention to the problem of governance and its shortcomings starts from this point. Therefore, the main question of this research is how to categorize intellectuals' criticisms of governance? Based on their themes, it can be considered as "criticism of tyranny", "criticism of government methods without direct negation of tyranny" and "criticism of modernist governance efforts". The first was with the formation of the concept of "dispute" in Akhundzadeh's thought and its continuation in the concept of "tyranny". The second one was the efforts of people such as Malik, Mishtar al-Doulah, and Majdal Molk, and the third one was created in Akhundzadeh's thinking in criticizing the legalistic efforts of the Nasrid era and Talebov's criticism of constitutionalism.
In the presented typology, and in their evaluation, it can be said that Iranian modernists were divided into two categories, inside and outside the government. By paying attention to the approach of people like Akhundzadeh, Mirza Aghakhan and Talebov, who lived outside the government and the country, their more frank and harsh criticisms of the government and emphasis on the informality and cruelty of the rulers, lawlessness and tyranny, expressing the influence of the environment on the thought or at least the type of expression It is. On the other hand, the approach of people like Malek, Mishtar al-Dawlah, and Majd al-Malek, while being critical, has a conservative orientation and considers the current methods of governance above all, and although it is "revolutionary" at its core, its expression could not be radical in any way. At the same time, this issue can be applied to the criticism style of these two groups of modernists.
 
Conclusion
The critics of the Qajar era, in their critical approach, had correctly noticed very important defects in governance. "Criticism of tyranny", "criticism of governmental methods without direct negation of tyranny" and "criticism of modernist governance efforts". The first was with the formation of the concept of "dispute" in Akhundzadeh's thought and its continuation in the concept of "tyranny". The second one was the efforts of people such as Malik, Mishtar al-Doulah, and Majdal Molk, and the third one was created in Akhundzadeh's thinking in criticizing the legalistic efforts of the Nasrid era and Talebov's criticism of constitutionalism.
As seen in each type of criticism of governance, the emphasis was on the undeniable facts that existed in the society and government of that time. The criticisms of people like Malek, although mild and conservative, expressed the ineffectiveness of the government, which could no longer rule with the old methods in the new era. According to today's words, those like Malek and Mishtar al-Dawlah understood the requirements of governance and tried to fundamentally reform it from within the fabric of power. The same approach can also be seen in another way in modernists outside the government who even went further and criticized these "new" approaches. The progressive Iranian modernists had correctly realized that the way out of the chaos and crisis that had befallen the country was, above all, a change in the basis of governance. Although, people like Akhundzadeh and Talebov looked at the change in the society through the expansion of literacy and public education, but the common thread of all these approaches was governance and underlying change in it. The evolution of governance criticism in this period shows that the approaches within the government, considering the problems of governance in the methods, were not able to create a fundamental change in it, and finally, it was this radical approach that was able to pave the way for Open constitutionalism movement. As, in the end, constitutionalism was established as a desirable thing and the final ideal form for all modernists, and the criticism of tyranny and autocrats in the constitutional era was based on critical approaches that had already crystallized in the thought of these modernists. Of course, all these criticisms are part of "Political Modernization Experience" constituted the Iranians and in the end, they cannot be separated from each other, but from various critical "views", in the end, for the advanced Iranian modernists, reaching the desired government was the same as "constitutionality".
In the era of Naseri, a relatively deep and important transformation took place in relation to the issue of governance. This development, which was created by Akhundzadeh's approach to the foundations of governance, led the attitude towards government to be understood in a different way from previous historical periods. Although the Iranians were aware of the autocracy and tyranny of the kings and considered it reprehensible, and the reflection of such a thing can be seen in many of their historical, literary and political texts, the "new" knowledge of the Iranians, from Akhundzadeh onwards, towards the government, is more or less It became "revolutionary" and subversive. This subversion was sometimes open and sometimes hidden, and finally the "negation of tyranny" was manifested in constitutionalism as the great achievement of these open and hidden criticisms.